|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
A perfect God made a perfect universe and sin brought disease, deformity, accidents, disasters and death into it. Faith, can you come up with any philosophical argument that there was a Fall, apart from Bibilical references? On the face of it, it all looks accidental.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The brokenness of our world, the very accidents you mention, the diseases and disasters, all human misery, all the evil within human beings, murders and war and the works, is explained by original sin to my mind, and absolutely nothing else explains it. That's the best I can do for a philosophical argument. I suppose one might be able to come up with some "argument from conscience." We know these things are bad, but how do we know it? Why does the world seem so unfair? After all, all we have is this world. What is this ideal that we are comparing it to? It must be an ideal buried in collective human memory, of Paradise. Not much of an argument, I don't think. Perhaps the reason for my unbelief is my fear of ambiguity! ha! I can't handle all those paradoxes about the concept of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
We're in a Science Forum Faith. This is a science forum? I didn't know that. Doesn't seem like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Essentialism reigns; discrete kinds , which are completely seperated from each other, are a given. That's where it all starts. "Show me an example of a dog evolving into a cat!!" Dogs are dogs, cats are cats. The concepts of something being "more or less dog" or "more or less cat" don't seem to be allowed or thinkable. Gradualism is literally unthinkable! I don't know about your overall point in your description of the psychology of creationists, since it seems to be that a "fear of ambiguity and uncertainty" could as well propel a love of science as anything else. However, in your reference to essentialism I agree totally that this is the main stumbling block in understanding TOE. Now, as regards politics: One might have a point in linking up a dislike for homosexuality with essentialistic thought. Of course, I'm uttering a stereotype here. There might be many creationists who have no problem with homosexuality. But let's assume for the moment that the stereotypical generalization is fairly accurate: homosexuality might be seen as an ambiguous sexual activity that falls in line with an ambiguity about "kinds." Essentialism would also look askance on homosexuality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
On that note I'm just going to leave EvC altogether, which has been coming for some time. Sorry to hear that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You are the one refusing to do a simple thing like provide evidence in a science forum Science forum? Do you find the OP scientific? Looks like speculative psychological comments to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yeah, but the OP is not scientific nor was claimed to be by the poster. So the term "science forum" is being used very loosely here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Sorry, the term "science forum" should NEER be used "loosely." If a thread is put in an inappropriate forum, it's up to the thread creator to bring it up The question that occurs to me is whether "science forum" means the topic is about science or whether the topic is a scientific question. The OP was not a scientific question. Science depends on physical evidence, and there is no such evidence as to why Creationists reject evolution. However, the topic was ABOUT science in the sense that it was about evolution. But there seems to be some kind of rules about "science forums" that don't apply to others. Provide evidence. But do we mean scientific evidence (physical evidence)? Surely not, if we are talking about the psychological reasons that Creationists reject evolution. What are you going to do--take a survey? This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-13-2005 11:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
At least start from some real data, and try and figure out what those answers "really mean." I don't understand how a survey is scientific data. The participants may be lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is certainly "softer" data than, say, a blood test analysis, but it is useful nonetheless Definition of "soft science": psuedo-science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why do you reject the theory of evolution?
a. It's just a "theory."b. I don't like being told that my ancestors were dirty, smelly monkeys. c. It conflicts with Genesis. d. It smells of atheism e. I never saw a dog give birth to an otter. f. I have a fear of ambiguity Thank you for your participation in this survey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ok, it's not the most reliable of data gathering techniques, but what do you suggest? That science ignores thoughts and emotions altogether? We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So, maybe you'd like to critique this study and explain how it is pseudo-science You're right, Schraf. I couldn't understand a word of it, so it must be science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So the Cognitive Psychology PhD my husband just earned from the #3 Psychology program in the country is actually not a real scientific degree? If the evidence he studies is physical and isolatable, then it's science. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 02:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't know what "isolatable" means. It's not a standard scientific term I just mean it has to be amenable to the scientific method--control of variables and so on. Only physical things are amenable to the scientific method. This is not to say that a field that is non-scientific is not a useful and worthy field of study. History, for example, is in my opinion very worthy of study, but you can't study it scientifically. Some historian studies a bunch of documents and comes up with a theory about the causes of the rise of communism--a very worthy topic but not scientific. There are things you can do with mathematics, of course--in many fields. But mathematics in itself is not science--it's a tool. So if it's not science it shouldn't be called science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024